House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 18 Apr 2006 (pt 36)

18 Apr 2006 : Column 129W—continued

Bereavement Allowance

Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many men received bereavement allowance in the last period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [62355]

(2) how many (a) widows and (b) widowers are receiving bereavement allowance; and if he will make a statement. [62364]

Mr. Plaskitt: As at August 2005, there were 17,400 men and 37,400 women in receipt of bereavement allowance in Great Britain.

Capita

James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many contracts his Department holds with (a) Capita plc and (b) its subsidiaries which still have a potential duration of five years or more. [61476]

Mrs. McGuire [holding answer 29 March 2006]: The Department has only one contract with Capita, with a potential duration of five years or more, let through an open competition following an advert in the Official Journal of the European Union. A Records Storage contract was awarded in 2004 and runs from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2011 with option to extend for up to a further three years.

Child Poverty

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the proportion of children living in households below 60 per cent. of median income in each year since 1976–77 (a) before and (b) after housing costs; and if he will make a statement. [44735]

Margaret Hodge: Specific information regarding low income for Great Britain is available in Households Below Average Income (HBAI) 1994/95–2004/05", available in the Library. The threshold of below 60 per cent. contemporary median income is the most commonly used in reporting trends in low income.

There is no fully consistent time series using a single data source since 1979. The latest time series on a consistent basis is only available from 1994–95, which is sourced from the Family Resources Survey and covers Great Britain. Previous HBAI results were sourced from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES), which employed a slightly different definition of income and related to the United Kingdom. FES estimates are also presented for GB, for consistency with the FRS.

The following table gives the proportions of children living in households with less than 60 per cent. of relative median household income for years that estimates are available from 1979. Information before 1979 is not available from official sources.
Income below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income

Before housing costs After housing costs

1979⁽²²⁾ 12 14

1981⁽²²⁾ 18 20

1987⁽²²⁾ 21 25

1988–89⁽²²⁾ 23 26

1990–91⁽²²⁾ 26 31

1991–92⁽²²⁾ 27 32

1992–93⁽²²⁾ 27 33

1993–95⁽²²⁾ 25 32

1979⁽²³⁾ 12 14

1981⁽²³⁾ 17 19

1987⁽²³⁾ 21 25

1988–89⁽²³⁾ 23 26

1990–91⁽²³⁾ 25 30

1991–92⁽²³⁾ 26 31

1992–93⁽²³⁾ 26 32

1993–95⁽²³⁾ 25 32

1994–95⁽²⁴⁾ 23 31

1995–96⁽²⁴⁾ 22 31

1996–97⁽²⁴⁾ 25 33

1997–98⁽²⁴⁾ 25 32

1998–99⁽²⁴⁾ 24 33

1999–2000⁽²⁴⁾ 23 32

2000–01⁽²⁴⁾ 21 30

2001–02⁽²⁴⁾ 21 30

2002–03⁽²⁴⁾ 21 28

2003–04⁽²⁴⁾ 21 28

2004–05⁽²⁴⁾ 19 27

Notes:
1. Table shows numbers in millions.
2. The reference period for FRS figures is single financial years.
3.FES figures are single calendar years from 1979–87, two combined calendar years from 1988–89 to1992–93 and two financial years combined for 1993–95.
Sources:
⁽²²⁾Family Expenditure Survey (UK).
⁽²³⁾Family Expenditure Survey (GB).
⁽²⁴⁾Family Resources Survey (GB).

18 Apr 2006 : Column 130W

	Before housing costs	After housing costs
1979⁽²²⁾	12	14
1981⁽²²⁾	18	20
1987⁽²²⁾	21	25
1988–89⁽²²⁾	23	26
1990–91⁽²²⁾	26	31
1991–92⁽²²⁾	27	32
1992–93⁽²²⁾	27	33
1993–95⁽²²⁾	25	32
1979⁽²³⁾	12	14
1981⁽²³⁾	17	19
1987⁽²³⁾	21	25
1988–89⁽²³⁾	23	26
1990–91⁽²³⁾	25	30
1991–92⁽²³⁾	26	31
1992–93⁽²³⁾	26	32
1993–95⁽²³⁾	25	32
1994–95⁽²⁴⁾	23	31
1995–96⁽²⁴⁾	22	31
1996–97⁽²⁴⁾	25	33
1997–98⁽²⁴⁾	25	32
1998–99⁽²⁴⁾	24	33
1999–2000⁽²⁴⁾	23	32
2000–01⁽²⁴⁾	21	30
2001–02⁽²⁴⁾	21	30
2002–03⁽²⁴⁾	21	28
2003–04⁽²⁴⁾	21	28
2004–05⁽²⁴⁾	19	27

Further information showing the proportion and number of individuals living in low income households, including annual levels, can be found in the publication Households Below Average Income 1994/95—2004/05". This also reports statistics between 1979 and 1995–96, using the data source and income definitions previously employed for the 'Households Below Average Income' series.

Child Support

Jessica Morden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) maximum, (b) minimum and (c) average length of time taken by the child support commissioners was to reach a decision on appeals placed by claimants relating to non-resident, non paying parents in the latest period for which figures are available. [61788]

Ms Harman: I have been asked to reply.

The Commissioners' Office decides appeals on a point of law from Appeal Service tribunals in social security, tax credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit cases as well as child support cases. It reports on the disposal times for its work taken as a whole, and does not separate performance statistics by individual benefit type. Performance data are generated via a database system that holds statistics on the overall work of the tribunal, and the format of this data cannot be manipulated to provide performance figures for child support cases only.

18 Apr 2006 : Column 131W

Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his latest estimate is of the average time it takes the Child Support Agency to bring cases from first application to assessment; [30039]

(2) how many and what proportion of eligible parents received their first payment from the Child Support Agency within the time limit of six weeks during the last calendar year, broken down by month. [30041]

Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty:

In reply to your Parliamentary Questions about enforcement activity in the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what his latest estimate is of the average time it takes the Child Support Agency to bring cases from first application to assessment.

You also asked how many and what proportion of eligible parents received their first payment from the Child Support Agency within the time limit of six weeks during the last calendar year broken down by month.

As at the end of December, of those cases that progressed to calculation since the introduction of the new scheme, the average time from first contact to calculation was 177 days (25 weeks). Of such cases, 24 per cent. received a calculation in less that 6 weeks; 49 per cent. between 6 weeks and 6 months; 16 per cent. between 6 months and a year; and 11 per cent. took more than a year.

It should be noted, however, that the Agency does not regard an application as being cleared once a calculation alone has been carried out, but once collection arrangements have been agreed with the non resident. Additionally, since not all Child Support Agency applications result in a calculation, an application is also defined as cleared if the case is closed, the parent with care is identified as claiming Good Cause or is subject to a Reduced Benefit Decision, or the application is identified as being a change of circumstances on an existing case as opposed to a new application.

As of the end of December 2005, for all cases cleared since the introduction of the new scheme, the mean average time taken to process a new-scheme application from the date of first contact to clearance, as defined above, was 193 days (28 weeks). Of those cases cleared, 25 per cent. did so in less that 6 weeks; 42 per cent. between 6 weeks and 6 months; 18 per cent. between 6 months and a year; and 16 per cent. took more than a year. However, it should be noted that these figures exclude 104,000 applications that came through the Jobcentre Plus interface and have been cleared, but for which management information does not enable the age at clearance to be determined.

The Agency does not have a time limit for the time taken for a parent with care to receive their first payment.

Information regarding the number and percentage of cases receiving a first payment within six weeks or longer is attached.

Once a case has received a calculation, a method of collection must be agreed with the non-resident parent and set up by the Agency which, in the cases of a Direct Debit or a Standing Order, may take a few weeks. The day on which payment is due from the non-resident parent is then specified by the Agency having taken in to account the date of any other income payable to the non-resident parent, which may result in a delay of up to 4 weeks to make payment to the Agency. The Agency then has 10 days to process the payment from the non-resident parent and make payment to the parent with care.

Delays may occur if a non resident parent does not comply. For an employed non-resident parent the Agency can then impose a Deductions from Earnings Order (DEO). Where this occurs, the Agency must contact and liaise with the employer to set up the

18 Apr 2006 : Column 132W

The elapsed times between a payment request by the Agency and actual payment by the non resident parent mean that, even when the Agency becomes more efficient at processing applications to the point of calculation, and if the non resident parent accepted financial responsibility for their children without the need for enforcement action, it is unlikely that it would be physically possible for many parents with care to receive maintenance payments within 6 weeks of their first contact with the Agency.

I hope you find this helpful.

Cases where payment has been made from the Agency to the parent with care by time elapsed since first contact with the CSA Number

Cases receiving payment in

Date of
intake Less than six weeks Six weeks or longer Cases where payment not yet received Total

2004

January ⁽²⁵⁾— 6,000 1,500 8,000

February ⁽²⁵⁾— 5,500 1,500 7,500

March ⁽²⁵⁾— 7,000 2,000 9,000

April ⁽²⁵⁾— 5,500 1,500 7,000

May ⁽²⁵⁾— 6,000 1,500 7,500

June ⁽²⁵⁾— 6,000 1,500 7,500

July ⁽²⁵⁾— 5,500 1,500 7,000

August ⁽²⁵⁾— 5,500 1,500 7,000

September ⁽²⁵⁾— 5,500 1,500 7,000

October ⁽²⁵⁾— 5,500 1,500 7,000

November ⁽²⁵⁾— 5,000 1,500 6,500

December ⁽²⁵⁾— 4,000 1,000 5,000

Cases where payment has been made from the Agency to the parent with care by time elapsed since first contact with the CSA Percentage

Cases receiving payment in

Date of
intake Less than six weeks Six weeks or longer Cases where payment not yet received Total

2004

January 2 76 21 8,000

February 3 76 21 7,500

March 2 77 21 9,000

April 2 78 20 7,000

May 2 79 19 7,500

June 2 79 19 7,500

July 2 79 19 7,000

August 2 78 19 7,000

September 3 77 20 7,000

October 3 77 19 7,000

November 3 75 22 6,500

December 2 77 21 5,000

⁽²⁵⁾ Less than 250.
Note:
Numbers are rounded to the nearest 500, and percentages to the nearest whole per cent. As such, components may not sum to totals.

	Cases receiving payment in
Date of intake	Less than six weeks	Six weeks or longer	Cases where payment not yet received	Total
2004
January	⁽²⁵⁾—	6,000	1,500	8,000
February	⁽²⁵⁾—	5,500	1,500	7,500
March	⁽²⁵⁾—	7,000	2,000	9,000
April	⁽²⁵⁾—	5,500	1,500	7,000
May	⁽²⁵⁾—	6,000	1,500	7,500
June	⁽²⁵⁾—	6,000	1,500	7,500
July	⁽²⁵⁾—	5,500	1,500	7,000
August	⁽²⁵⁾—	5,500	1,500	7,000
September	⁽²⁵⁾—	5,500	1,500	7,000
October	⁽²⁵⁾—	5,500	1,500	7,000
November	⁽²⁵⁾—	5,000	1,500	6,500
December	⁽²⁵⁾—	4,000	1,000	5,000

	Cases receiving payment in
Date of intake	Less than six weeks	Six weeks or longer	Cases where payment not yet received	Total
2004
January	2	76	21	8,000
February	3	76	21	7,500
March	2	77	21	9,000
April	2	78	20	7,000
May	2	79	19	7,500
June	2	79	19	7,500
July	2	79	19	7,000
August	2	78	19	7,000
September	3	77	20	7,000
October	3	77	19	7,000
November	3	75	22	6,500
December	2	77	21	5,000

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 23 February 2006, Official Report, column 53W, on the Child Support Agency, what the (a) shortest and (b) longest period was between the Child Support Agency notifying the Jobcentre Plus to deduct the five pound flat rate in maintenance from a non-resident

18 Apr 2006 : Column 133W

parent's benefit and the maintenance deduction being made in the latest period for which figures are available. [56881]

Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is the matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to my right hon. Friend with the information requested.

Letter from Hilary Reynolds:

In reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive is currently unavailable as he is communicating the Operational Improvement Plan to all Agency staff. I am responding on his behalf.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 23rd February 2006 Official Report column 53W on the Child Support Agency what the (a) shortest and (b) longest period was between the Child Support Agency notifying the Jobcentre Plus to deduct the five pound flat rate in maintenance from a non-resident parent's benefit and the maintenance deduction being made in the latest period for which figures are available.

I assume that you intended to refer to the answer of 27th February 2006 Official Report column 238W, since this relates to the same subject as your current question.

As I noted in my previous letter, information regarding the time taken between the Agency notifying Jobcentre Plus to set up a deduction from a non-resident parent's benefit and the maintenance deduction being made is not available.

However, it is possible to provide indicative information using the difference between the date on which Jobcentre Plus notified the Agency that a collection schedule had been set up, and the date on which maintenance was received by the Agency. Due to limitations with currently available data, this indicative information can only be provided where:

Payment had both been received from Jobcentre Plus and made to the parent with care.

The case's original collection schedule was a deduction from benefit and was still in place at the time of first payment, i.e. excluding cases where there was a subsequent change of circumstance.

Data in this area is extremely complex, and the analysis required to answer this question revealed anomalies in the base data that was used to provide my previous answer. In my previous letter, I stated that the average time between Jobcentre Plus notifying the Agency that a collection schedule had been set up and payment being received by the Agency was around 28 days. That figure should actually be 25 days.

In December 2005, scheme to date, for all new-scheme cases:

The shortest period of time between Jobcentre Plus notifying the Agency that a collection schedule had been set up and payment being received by the Agency was 0 days—that is, the payment was received on the same day.

The longest period of time was 692 days. But note that only 60 cases, out of 34,000 considered, took longer than 350 days to complete this process and in 75% of cases payment was received by the Agency in 29 days or less of Jobcentre Plus notifying the Agency that a collection schedule had been set up.

I hope you find this useful, and I apologise for the error in the previous response.

Next Section

Index

Home Page